In aggregate downvoted posts are practically always low-effort (or sometimes just really unhinged or otherwise patently wrong), so I'm not convinced that downvotes being used unkindly is a big problem.
Downvoting is also restricted to accounts who exceed a point threshold. I think that particular feature (ensuring people who can downvote at least have some level of trust within the site) has been critical to prevent hive mind-style downvoting. I rarely see downvoted comments where I don't understand why they were downvoted.
perhaps ironic, but can you help me understand why the GP comment was downvoted on this thread? I’m genuinely wondering. (the one from throwaway_pdp09)
I’m definitely happy that there’s minimum Karma for downvotes, but how does it prevent hive-mind downvoting?
At a guess, it's a post that implies a sort of soft conspiracy with very little evidence. It just doesn't contribute a whole lot of value to the subject at hand, except for attempting to foment a vague sense of wrongness.
I'm the poster of that. Regarding evidence, I copied bits from the HN guidelines, said that downvotes are OK if I know why cos they bring benefit, then got silently downvoted. Is that not evidence enough? BTW I can't downvote myself. It was an honestly made critique and suffered from exactly what I protested against.
If I was wrong, your response does not elucidate why, in fact let me quote bits back to you "soft conspiracy" ... "very little evidence"[0] ... "a vague sense of wrongness"
Well maybe but your post has less substance than mine.
